I can tell you what Chime Yongden Rinpoche says Dechen Norbu..as I have said elsewhere, he was teaching Dzogchen 30 years ago...and also saying that no preliminary practice is needed.But he said that no one in the west at that time believed it. They needed the two stages approach.I remember him in a public teaching saying " if you were ready to receive it I could show you your true nature right now ..is anyone ready ? "And we all sat there looking at each other.One of the major achievements that ChNNN has brought about is a community of people, not all of whom are his students, who are ready to receive.

Clarence wrote:As for myself, not that it is interesting or entertaining in any way, but I was never such a dogmatic Buddhist as Malcolm ever was so his turn-around doesn't affect my opinions on this subject very much. I think the same goes for a lot of people, including Adamantine. So, it would be nice if people could at least show some respect when he asks valid questions..

Right on.

I don't see much value in this topic because of how it was conceived and the tone that was used.

I'm not sure if you're really interested in having some clarification or if you just have a chip on your shoulder. I suspect you should take a step back and have a few breaths, given your recent behavior. All the accusations you made not so long ago, some quite unfair and not corresponding to reality, lead me to suspect you might be taking this way too personally and perhaps backing off for a while would be prudent, at least to gain some fresh perspective.

Accept that Malcom and others thinks differently than you and move on. He is not trying to convince you or anyone else for that matter. He is presenting his opinions.This sort of aggressive interrogation only leads to suffering and very little clarification. If each time someone presents an opinion different than yours you decide to pursue this line of inquiry, you won't be making many friends. There are ways and ways of going about disagreements. The one you chose is not the best. It's way too confrontational, in my opinion. Keep in mind that Malcom, or anyone else for that matter, owes you no explanations.

Try to be more level headed and ask your questions in a friendly manner. As far as I know, Malcom never harmed you, did he? So why the attitude?

Simon E. wrote:I can tell you what Chime Yongden Rinpoche says Dechen Norbu..as I have said elsewhere, he was teaching Dzogchen 30 years ago...and also saying that no preliminary practice is needed.But he said that no one in the west at that time believed it. They needed the two stages approach.I remember him in a public teaching saying " if you were ready to receive it I could show you your true nature right now ..is anyone ready ? "And we all sat there looking at each other.

Dechen Norbu wrote:What also seems more common is that students of ChNN and other teachers have more difficulty with this issue, perhaps because they need to reconcile two very different approaches to Dzogchen practice. I understand it may be a hard spot to be in.

DN, with all due respect I feel that although the post you're responding to kept a thread of connection to the topic of this thread, I believe you are taking it and I would really prefer you to help keep it on point. As I already said, despite some of the claims you and others here make on behalf of ChNN's intent, I don't believe his full view is being validly expressed in many cases-- and we are listening to the same teachings and reading the same books-- I already quoted some on this thread that show a different POV-- so to be positing a stark dualism as the one you posit above without actually dealing with any of the points in the OP is a distraction.

I will just say that I started this thread because while looking at the teachings of ChNN in contrast to some of the DC culture that we find-- or at least proclamations about DC culture-- we see a quite diverse number of perspectives. One could easily take a few quotes and develop a strong opinion in one direction or another, (as has been exhibited very clearly)--and be ignoring a whole other context of teachings ChNN has given, and comments he has made. I don't believe it is the same as Trungpa's Shambala because I don't see ChNN's intent in creating a structure specifically outside of the Buddhist context, although (as Username pointed out in another thread) he is of course happy to accept students who may come from other religious backgrounds. As we see earlier in this thread, even Malcolm expects these people will eventually drop their beliefs that are not compatible (animal sacrifice, and I would assume if pressed, he would probably apply this to other beliefs/activities that go against Buddhist ethics).. so I think this entire dualism you and others are creating is just not very solid ground.

What is ironic is that I have great respect for Trungpa's intent and the "gTerma" of Shambhala being not explicit to a religion, in which anyone could come and practice it completely without converting, etc. And I have elsewhere been sympathetic to the old-gaurd of Trungpa's students who have been upset that the Sakyong has swept these teachings into the Buddhist category. . and at the same time, Malcolm in a parallel thread called the Shambhala vision of an enlightened society a total fantasy -- which sounds a bit like a polemical discrediting of what (at least began as) a Dzogchen-based religious pluralistic organization. So this seems like a bit of a contradiction, but maybe Malcolm will explain what he meant by this. If ChNN was very explicit that he was not teaching Buddhism, -rather than sometimes making some statements about the essence of Dharma being beyond limitations, etc.. poking us so that we practitioners don't get stuck with solid identifications towards anything-- and rather than sometimes acknowledging that people can approach these teachings who have backgrounds in other faiths (same as HH the DL and many other "Buddhist" teachers do, as username pointed out) then I would understand the passionate type of declarations that have been made on his behalf. But since I am familiar with his body of teachings, transcriptions and texts I just don't think this is what he means. I am using the gyalpo issue as one case-in-point. Nobody seems to want to examine that.

Contentment is the ultimate wealth;Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

It seems rather simple. You don't have to be a Buddhist to practice Dzogchen. You start where you are, not needing to convert yourself to any set of ideas. When you get all the transmissions, recognize the natural state and keep practicing, your beliefs, whatever they might be, won't stand a chance against the power of direct experience. You don't need to go and take formal refuge, for instance. You're already taking refuge in the best source of them all.This doesn't mean you become a Buddhist. It means you risk becoming a Buddha, one day.

Let's imagine the case of someone practicing with mundane spirits who decides to practice Dzogchen. He has his ideas and keeps doing those practices to the point where he understands he doesn't really need them. He wasn't told to become a Buddhist, worship not mundane spirits and so on and so forth. No, he was given teachings, practiced them and then decided to step away from his former practices, rendered obsolete. He could have been said, instead, abandon those practices, become a Buddhist and then practice Dzogchen. This, however, is not necessary. So, what's confusing about it?

Dechen Norbu wrote:I don't see much value in this topic because of how it was conceived and the tone that was used.

You have a relentless ability to project all kinds of things onto my writing, so much so that I suspect you to be a bit "tone deaf".

I'm not sure if you're really interested in having some clarification or if you just have a chip on your shoulder.

I have no chip on my shoulder, just critical thinking abilities. But keep up the ad homs, if you feel it is constructive.. To me it just seems like you are trying to derail the thread. Others posting in support of the questions, and the tone, and are interested in the exploration should be enough for you to see an objective quality to them.. So I don't find your accusations or attempts to make this personal at all to be in good faith or not bias.

All the accusations you made not so long ago, some quite unfair and not corresponding to reality, lead me to suspect you might be taking this way too personally and perhaps backing off for a while would be prudent, at least to gain some fresh perspective.

If you have any issues with the way you have been grossly misinterpreting my posts, here and elsewhere, and questions about my motivations (which I have clearly stated) I ask you to please take a step back, and talk to me about it via PM rather than derail the thread.

This sort of aggressive interrogation only leads to suffering and very little clarification

.

It is not aggressive interrogation to publicly examine claims that have been made publicly. That is the entire point of a discussion forum. Perhaps you should stop using it if you feel it to be inappropriate.

Try to be more level headed and ask your questions in a friendly manner. As far as I know, Malcom never harmed you, did he? So why the attitude?

I have certainly never intended to be asking questions in an unfriendly manner, although I do find some of the responses quite unfriendly. I have never made any ad hom comments or personalized anything-- I am interested in the ideas, and if people find me questioning ideas to be a personal attack then they maybe shouldn't be posting their ideas on a public forum. It is quite simple. Malcolm has done the same to me and many others for many years, and I have never taken it personally (I don't think!).

As I quoted already in ChNN's words: "The main point is what (Shakyamuni) Buddha said: "I discovered something profound and luminous beyond all concepts. I tried to communicate it with words, but nobody understands. So now I will meditate alone in the forest." This verse of Buddha is the conclusion of the teaching."

If anyone who is practicing on this path, if they choose to communicate with words should understand how imperfect they are, and be ready for misunderstandings. I am perfectly open to the fact that I am misunderstanding Malcolm, and others here.. perhaps because of the words they used -- the way I interpreted those words---them not being thorough enough --- or over-generalizing (which I my current belief) or many other possibilites. So my seeking clarification in the spirit of understanding what a teacher we hold in common truly means, I don't see why all the animosity arises. Nobody has to participate in this thread if they don't want to, so to get all upset it exists is pure silliness. Malcolm can choose to respond to my latest posts or not. If he doesn't I will assume he has no reasonable response and that will be as good an answer as any. If someone else has a reasonable response, that's fantastic! But I really prefer you and others don't keep trying to obfuscate the issues and derail the thread. Thanks!

Last edited by Adamantine on Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Contentment is the ultimate wealth;Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

Dechen Norbu wrote:No, he was given teachings, practiced them and then decided to step away from his former practices, rendered obsolete. He could have been said, instead, abandon those practices, become a Buddhist and then practice Dzogchen. This, however, is not necessary. So, what's confusing about it?

It seems far too hypothetical my friend. For instance, since really we are discussing DC and ChNN's views here, -let's just say that someone who had a strong devotion to a certain gyalpo came to study Dzogchen in the DC. They participate in a retreat directly or via webcast. ChNN gives transmission of Guru Yoga, but also the lung for the tuns and the ganapujas as he always does. Guru Drakpur practice is part of those. So said new disciple naturally wants to know more about this very wrathful, intense, knife-legged being they are self-visualizing. I mean, who wouldn't? They get the book on Guru Drakpur. They read about the 8 classes and the very intense provocations and problems ChNN describes with gyalpos. Or--ChNN brings it up during a teaching they are listening to via webcast or otherwise-- just as likely. If ChNN truly intended to teach a Dzogchen without Buddhism, he would not be continuously teaching Buddhism, and publishing and distributing Buddhist ideas about the 8 classes etc. Now, this exposure seems much more likely then someone just doing all these things without looking into them, or getting all these transmissions, but just doing Guru Yoga of White Ah alone and not exploring what the rest of it is about. It is just quite too hypothetical, not a practical reality. It is an empty example, imho.

Anyway, saying that they will slowly convert to a Buddhist way of thinking through practicing and then giving up their old beliefs is much different then saying they can practice and keep their old beliefs and still go through all the stages of realization at the same time-- which was explicit or implicit in other posts in this forum in the last few weeks. I am glad we are beginning to hone in on what people are actually trying to say or claim.

Contentment is the ultimate wealth;Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

For instance, since really we are discussing DC and ChNN's views here, -let's just say that someone who had a strong devotion to a certain gyalpo came to study Dzogchen in the DC. They participate in a retreat directly or via webcast. ChNN gives transmission of Guru Yoga, but also the lung for the tuns and the ganapujas as he always does. Guru Drakpur practice is part of those. So said new disciple naturally wants to know more about this very wrathful, intense, knife-legged being they are self-visualizing. I mean, who wouldn't? They get the book on Guru Drakpur. They read about the 8 classes and the very intense provocations and problems ChNN describes with gyalpos. If ChNN truly intended to teach a Dzogchen without Buddhism, he would not be continuously teaching Buddhism, and publishing and distributing Buddhist ideas about the 8 classes etc. Now, this exposure seems much more likely then someone just doing all these things without looking into them, or getting all these transmissions, but just doing Guru Yoga of White Ah along and not exploring what the rest of it is about. It is just quite too hypothetical, not a practical reality. It is an empty example, imho.

ChNN is describing a class of beings using Buddhist terminology. There are other religions who describe these same spirits with their vocabulary.Let me give you an example. Right now I'll give you a teaching in Portuguese : "Quando estiveres na reserva, tem cuidado para não te aproximares dos leões porque te podem atacar".What I said is "When you're in the game reserve, be carefull so that you don't get close to the lions because they can attack you".So, I described the same idea in two different languages. Lion and leão point the same reality in different languages. Calling it gyalpo or orixá (I'm not saying they are the same, because I don't know) is irrelevant. So what Namkhai Norbu is teaching could be taught by any religion that knows what gyalpos are, not mattering the name. Other Buddhists may even not recognize the existence of gyalpos, I don't know. So the eight classes are descriptions of realities. It's not just a Buddhist thing. I'm sure you'll see the same or a similar classification in Hinduism. Perhaps others call them angels, demons, spirits of nature and what have you. Like in Biology, you can find different classifications for the same beings.

Now, let's assume this student doesn't even believe there are such spirits. It doesn't matter. He doesn't need that belief to recognize his natural state. He doesn't need that belief to be present. He doesn't need that belief to integrate his experience. If later he discovers that these beings exist, the name religions give them makes little difference.

Anyway, saying that they will slowly convert to a Buddhist way of thinking through practicing and then giving up their old beliefs is much different then saying they can practice and keep their old beliefs and still go through all the stages of realization at the same time-- which was explicit or implicit in other posts in this forum in the last few weeks. I am glad we are beginning to hone in on what people are actually trying to say or claim.

If Buddhists are correct about their insights regarding reality, it's natural that the more one practices the more one gets closer to what Buddhists say about some things. But now we are talking about the fruit, not the path. And this seems a source of confusion. Sadharma and Buddhadharma are not the same. What you seem to be saying is that Sadharma is only possible via Buddhism. Well, this is what Buddhists think. I think Sadharma is possible via Dzogchen, without Buddhism. One could argue that it is even possible without Buddhadharma, if we limit the concept of Buddhadharma to the Dharma taught by Buddha and not all correct teachings that lead to enlightenment. We end up entangled in concepts, no matter what.

Edit: Just saw the second paragraph of Dechen Norbu's post, and it looks like he's saying pretty much the same thing here:

If we can say that the Eight Classes of beings exist independently of anyone's beliefs or non-beliefs about them, then let's also say for example that someone achieved Clairvoyance or Dream Yoga abilities through non-Buddhist practices. They would be able to see these Eight Classes of beings without being Buddhist right? So one doesn't have to necessarily be Buddhist to know about the Eight Classes. Although Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche of course teaches about them from a Buddhist background.

Now, if someone was actually worshiping a negative Gyalpo, and then did Guru Tragpur practice; then yeah they would run into some problems. Not because Guru Tragpur is practiced in the Buddhadharma traditions and the negative Gyalpo is not. They would have problems because Guru Tragpur is for subduing the class of beings that they worship, regardless as to people's possible Buddhist or non-Buddhist views. Just as Buddhist NKT people would have problems if they tried ride a bike in two opposite directions like this.

Or better yet, someone who worships negative Gyalpos just might become free of their influence through the practice of Guru Tragpur.

And I think that an actual Yoruba practitioner would be perfectly fine if they did the practice of Guru Tragpur; because even if some Yoruba Deities are Gyalpos, they would be of the positive type. Although like I said, some Yoruba offshoots might worship negative Gyalpos.

Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:04 pm, edited 5 times in total.

For instance, since really we are discussing DC and ChNN's views here, -let's just say that someone who had a strong devotion to a certain gyalpo came to study Dzogchen in the DC. They participate in a retreat directly or via webcast. ChNN gives transmission of Guru Yoga, but also the lung for the tuns and the ganapujas as he always does. Guru Drakpur practice is part of those. So said new disciple naturally wants to know more about this very wrathful, intense, knife-legged being they are self-visualizing. I mean, who wouldn't? They get the book on Guru Drakpur. They read about the 8 classes and the very intense provocations and problems ChNN describes with gyalpos. If ChNN truly intended to teach a Dzogchen without Buddhism, he would not be continuously teaching Buddhism, and publishing and distributing Buddhist ideas about the 8 classes etc. Now, this exposure seems much more likely then someone just doing all these things without looking into them, or getting all these transmissions, but just doing Guru Yoga of White Ah along and not exploring what the rest of it is about. It is just quite too hypothetical, not a practical reality. It is an empty example, imho.

ChNN is describing a class of beings using Buddhist terminology. There are other religions who describe these same spirits with their vocabulary.Let me give you an example. Right now I'll give you a teaching in Portuguese : "Quando estiveres na reserva, tem cuidado para não te aproximares dos leões porque te podem atacar".What I said is "When you're in the game reserve, be carefull so that you don't get close to the lions because they can attack you".So, I described the same idea in two different languages. Lion and leão point the same reality in different languages. Calling it gyalpo or orixá (I'm not saying they are the same, because I don't know) is irrelevant. So what Namkhai Norbu is teaching could be taught by any religion that knows what gyalpos are, not mattering the name. Other Buddhists may even not recognize the existence of gyalpos, I don't know. So the eight classes are descriptions of realities. It's not just a Buddhist thing. I'm sure you'll see the same or a similar classification in Hinduism. Perhaps others call them angels, demons, spirits of nature and what have you. Like in Biology, you can find different classifications for the same beings.

Now, let's assume this student doesn't even believe there are such spirits. It doesn't matter. He doesn't need that belief to recognize his natural state. He doesn't need that belief to be present. He doesn't need that belief to integrate his experience. If later he discovers that these beings exist, the name religions give them makes little difference.

Anyway, saying that they will slowly convert to a Buddhist way of thinking through practicing and then giving up their old beliefs is much different then saying they can practice and keep their old beliefs and still go through all the stages of realization at the same time-- which was explicit or implicit in other posts in this forum in the last few weeks. I am glad we are beginning to hone in on what people are actually trying to say or claim.

If Buddhists are correct about their insights regarding reality, it's natural that the more one practices the more one gets closer to what Buddhists say about some things. But now we are talking about the fruit, not the path. And this seems a source of confusion. Sadharma and Buddhadharma are not the same. What you seem to be saying is that Sadharma is only possible via Buddhism. Well, this is what Buddhists think. I think Sadharma is possible via Dzogchen, without Buddhism. One could argue that it is even possible without Buddhadharma, if we limit the concept of Buddhadharma to the Dharma taught by Buddha and not all correct teachings that lead to enlightenment. We end up entangled in concepts, no matter what.

Interesting thoughts DN, I appreciate them. I don't have time to reply properly now, got to run-- but I will later on!

Contentment is the ultimate wealth;Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

The moon should be watched, not the finger ... the finger is only a system. That one uses the forefinger, the thumb, or the ring finger, does not change anything to the moon ... it's only that one is more used with forefinger.

Sönam

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.- Longchen Rabjam -

Adamantine wrote:As I quoted already in ChNN's words: "The main point is what (Shakyamuni) Buddha said: "I discovered something profound and luminous beyond all concepts. I tried to communicate it with words, but nobody understands. So now I will meditate alone in the forest." This verse of Buddha is the conclusion of the teaching."

If anyone who is practicing on this path, if they choose to communicate with words should understand how imperfect they are, and be ready for misunderstandings. I am perfectly open to the fact that I am misunderstanding Malcolm, and others here.. perhaps because of the words they used -- the way I interpreted those words---them not being thorough enough --- or over-generalizing (which I my current belief) or many other possibilites. So my seeking clarification in the spirit of understanding what a teacher we hold in common truly means, I don't see why all the animosity arises. Nobody has to participate in this thread if they don't want to, so to get all upset it exists is pure silliness. Malcolm can choose to respond to my latest posts or not. If he doesn't I will assume he has no reasonable response and that will be as good an answer as any. If someone else has a reasonable response, that's fantastic! But I really prefer you and others don't keep trying to obfuscate the issues and derail the thread. Thanks!

This is quite important subject for any kind of Dharma discussion forum. Words cannot really touch the natural state.

/magnus

We are all here to help each other go through this, whatever it is.~Kurt Vonnegut

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

"Even though you have recognized your essence, if you do not get accustomed to it,You will be carried away by the enemy of thoughts, like a small child in a battle field.So long as you are not free from the limitations of accepting and rejecting,That long will you not recognize the view of the innermost secret heart-essence."

Dechen Norbu wrote:If Buddhists are correct about their insights regarding reality, it's natural that the more one practices the more one gets closer to what Buddhists say about some things. But now we are talking about the fruit, not the path. And this seems a source of confusion. Sadharma and Buddhadharma are not the same. What you seem to be saying is that Sadharma is only possible via Buddhism. Well, this is what Buddhists think. I think Sadharma is possible via Dzogchen, without Buddhism. One could argue that it is even possible without Buddhadharma, if we limit the concept of Buddhadharma to the Dharma taught by Buddha and not all correct teachings that lead to enlightenment. We end up entangled in concepts, no matter what.

And if you, like me, consider Dzogchen the heart of Buddhism, then this post make no sense at all.

/magnus

We are all here to help each other go through this, whatever it is.~Kurt Vonnegut

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

"Even though you have recognized your essence, if you do not get accustomed to it,You will be carried away by the enemy of thoughts, like a small child in a battle field.So long as you are not free from the limitations of accepting and rejecting,That long will you not recognize the view of the innermost secret heart-essence."

this whole theme of dzogchen versus dzogchen without buddhism really perplexes me more and more as time goes on. it's not the notion itself i find perplexing. my own root teacher has said it is possible to attain liberation by recognizing mind's nature even if one isn't a buddhist.

what i find perplexing is the passionate need to create a dichotomy between dzogchen taught in isolation from dzogchen taught in the context of buddhist dharma. generally it is dzogchen that is the unifying theme that allows one to pull together all dharma vehicles and practices into a single practice. generally it is also dzogchen that is the unifying theme that allows one to pull together all religious experience into one essence. the view is the great simplifier.

what i find perplexing is seeing dzogchen as a crowbar, pulling things apart.

Dechen Norbu wrote:If Buddhists are correct about their insights regarding reality, it's natural that the more one practices the more one gets closer to what Buddhists say about some things. But now we are talking about the fruit, not the path. And this seems a source of confusion. Sadharma and Buddhadharma are not the same. What you seem to be saying is that Sadharma is only possible via Buddhism. Well, this is what Buddhists think. I think Sadharma is possible via Dzogchen, without Buddhism. One could argue that it is even possible without Buddhadharma, if we limit the concept of Buddhadharma to the Dharma taught by Buddha and not all correct teachings that lead to enlightenment. We end up entangled in concepts, no matter what.

And if you, like me, consider Dzogchen the heart of Buddhism, then this post make no sense at all.

/magnus

A Theravadin would disagree with you. Heck, many Gelugpas would raise hell if you told them that! Aren't they Buddhists? Entirely and completely honest Buddhists? They are.I consider Buddhism a way to get there, not the only way. I mean, I don't know if there's Dzogchen outside Buddhism and Bön in this planet. I'm pretty confident, however, that there will be. What I don't do is considering mandatory to be a Buddhist (pick the school) in order to practice Dzogchen. If you recognized your natural state, you know this is deeply true. Does practicing Dzogchen makes you a Buddhist? I guess it depends. Many would say it doesn't make you a Gelugpa. (I guess HHDL would disagree ) Dzogchen practice will make you a Buddha, not necessarily a Buddhist. That is something you can or can not choose to be. I am.

xylem wrote:this whole theme of dzogchen versus dzogchen without buddhism really perplexes me more and more as time goes on. it's not the notion itself i find perplexing. my own root teacher has said it is possible to attain liberation by recognizing mind's nature even if one isn't a buddhist.

what i find perplexing is the passionate need to create a dichotomy between dzogchen taught in isolation from dzogchen taught in the context of buddhist dharma. generally it is dzogchen that is the unifying theme that allows one to pull together all dharma vehicles and practices into a single practice. generally it is also dzogchen that is the unifying theme that allows one to pull together all religious experience into one essence. the view is the great simplifier.

what i find perplexing is seeing dzogchen as a crowbar, pulling things apart.

xylem wrote:this whole theme of dzogchen versus dzogchen without buddhism really perplexes me more and more as time goes on. it's not the notion itself i find perplexing. my own root teacher has said it is possible to attain liberation by recognizing mind's nature even if one isn't a buddhist.

what i find perplexing is the passionate need to create a dichotomy between dzogchen taught in isolation from dzogchen taught in the context of buddhist dharma. generally it is dzogchen that is the unifying theme that allows one to pull together all dharma vehicles and practices into a single practice. generally it is also dzogchen that is the unifying theme that allows one to pull together all religious experience into one essence. the view is the great simplifier.

what i find perplexing is seeing dzogchen as a crowbar, pulling things apart.

good luck with this. i hope everybody finds what they need.

Can you point to where dzogchen is being used "as a crowbar"? This thread was titled by someone who doesn't agree that dzogchen is possible without the buddhist context, not by those of us who are arguing that dzogchen both historically and pragmatically are not of a piece with Buddhism. In fact, those that argue this are arguing that Dzogchen is perhaps the unifying factor behind ALL religious experience, not merely that of Buddhism, are the ones that end up greeted with pitchforks and torches.

To me this has been a really eye-opening experience of the power of conditioning.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that"—Bill Shankly

Yeah I don't see any dichotomy between Dzogchen with the Nine Yanas and Dzogchen without the Nine Yanas.

Nonetheless, there is the danger—that I'm sure many here well know—of taking Dzogchen as a belief system and thinking that we know how to "enter into" Rigpa, when actually it's nothing more than a mind-fabricated "Rigpa".

Therefore Dzogchen is the great simplifier in so far as we are really integrated with the real meaning.

H.H. the 14th Dalai Lama wrote:"If you feel that the view and practice of Dzogchen is quite simple, it is a sign that you have not understood it properly. It would be quite ironic if the highest of the nine vehicles, the Great Perfection, were the most simple. That would be very ironic indeed."

H.H. the 14th Dalai Lama wrote:"If you feel that the view and practice of Dzogchen is quite simple, it is a sign that you have not understood it properly. It would be quite ironic if the highest of the nine vehicles, the Great Perfection, were the most simple. That would be very ironic indeed."

That's funny, it reminds me of what is sometimes said about Linux:

Linux is user-friendly. It is just picky about who its friends are.

To the point though, I have to say that I respectfully disagree with HH that it is complicated. The entire system of nine yanas works with progressively less and less frames of reference. It's not the view or practice that is complicated, it is our neuroses and addiction to kleshas. For this reason we start with more complex and neurotic and work towards immediacy and simplicity.

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that"—Bill Shankly